Justice Watch: The Alliance for Justice Blog

August 2011

Former Vice President Dick Cheney this week released a new memoir, In My Time. Dahlia Lithwick writes compellingly that this memoir is yet another feeble attempt to reignite the debate over whether torture is wise policy, and in so doing, to try to legitimize a patently illegal practice.

This week Dick Cheney invites us all to join him again in a game he likes to play against the rest of us called Tedious Torture Standoff. He continues to assert—this time in his memoir, In My Time—that he has “no regrets” about developing the U.S. torture program, and he continues to argue—as he did this morning on the Today Show—that torturing prisoners is “safe, legal, and effective.” He continues to assert that he would “strongly support” water-boarding if actionable information could be elicited from a prisoner. He even says that different standards apply to torturing Americans and foreigners. Cheney is trying, in short, to draw us back into the same tiresome debate over the efficacy of torture, which is about as compelling as a debate about the efficacy of slavery or Jim Crow laws. Only fools debate whether patently illegal programs “work”—only fools or those who have been legally implicated in designing the programs in the first place.

Ltihwick goes on to observe that by not holding Cheney and the other architects of the torture regime accountable, President Obama has legitimized their behavior and elevated the torture debate. Because he has not been held accountable, Cheney is able to claim that his actions were legal. Addressing the fundamental role accountability plays in the rule of law, Lithwick writes that:

Torture really did become legal after 9/11, and even after it was repudiated—again and again—it will always be legal with regard to Dick Cheney and the others who perpetrated it without consequence. The law wasn’t a hollow symbol after 9/11. It was the only fixed system we had. We can go on pretending that torture is no longer permissible in this country or under international law, but until there are legal consequences for those who order or engage in torture, we will only be pretending. Cheney is the beneficiary of that artifice.

Alliance for Justice documented the radical justifications for torture in our short film Tortured Law, and continues to advocate for full accountability for those officials in the U.S. government who legitimized torture.

The Corporate Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion set a dangerous precedent, and is forcing everyday Americans out of the courthouse. AFJ takes a look at some of the cases impacted by the decision.

Case: Wolf v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.

Matthew Wolf is a captain in the Army Reserve JAG Corp who was deployed oversees in late 2007. A year earlier, Captain Wolf leased a new car through Nissan on a 39 month lease, and paid about $600 in advance costs. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides that when called to active duty, reservists and National Guard members are entitled to terminate automotive leases and recover a portion of upfront costs paid. Nissan, however, refused to refund any portion of Wolf’s payments. Wolf filed a class action on behalf of himself and all other servicemembers whose rights Nissan would not honor. However, Nissan’s lease agreement contained an arbitration clause with a class action waiver. The district court held that, in light of Concepción, the FAA and its “policies favoring and promoting arbitration” required solitary arbitration, even if it hindered the policy goals behind the SCRA.

The Corporate Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion set a dangerous precedent, and is forcing everyday Americans out of the courthouse. AFJ takes a look at some of the cases impacted by the decision.

Case: Arellano v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Stacie Lee Arellano bought a “MyTouch 4G” smartphone from T-Mobile, and signed a two year contract for service. But, according to Arellano, the phone and T-Mobile’s network don’t actually provide “4G” service or speeds, just a rebranded “3G” connection. Questionable “4G” labeling is an ongoing problem in the cellular industry, and Arellano sought to represent a class of consumers in seeking damages and injunctive relief against T-Mobile’s advertising. Arellano argued that the contract’s class waiver was unenforceable because it would preclude any possibility of obtaining an injunction to prevent T-Mobile from continuing to deceive the general public. The district judge ruled that “perhaps regrettably, this argument was rejected” by the Supreme Court’s Concepción decision.

The Senate’s slow pace when it comes to considering and confirming judicial nominations has been gaining more attention in recent months, as the judicial vacancy crisis becomes more and more apparent. Courts across the nation are suffering under enormous caseloads, and Americans seeking justice are being forced to wait longer and longer to have their day in court.

Republican obstruction in the last Congress left President Obama with the lowest percentage of approved judicial nominees at the end of his first two years of any President in American history.

Yet the Senate has confirmed just 35 Obama judicial nominees this year — with only three for the courts of appeals. The responsibility for lingering vacancies now lies primarily with Capitol Hill.

…

What excuse is there to hold up confirmation for uncontroversial trial court nominees? Kathleen Williams, for example, had the support of her home-state senators — Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Marco Rubio — and was designated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on an overwhelmed court in the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Williams was one of the lucky four who finally earned confirmation this month from a unanimous Senate — more than a year after Mr. Obama originally nominated her.

There are 112 federal district and circuit court vacancies, and 56 pending nominees.

For more on the judicial vacancy crisis, and reports on nominees and confirmations, see Alliance for Justice’s Judicial Selection Project.

Member Spotlight

AIDS United is a national organization dedicated to the development, analysis, cultivation, and encouragement of sound policies and programs in response to the HIV epidemic. Through the dissemination of information and the building and use of advocacy on behalf of all those living with and affected by HIV, AIDS Action has been instrumental in the development and implementation of major public health policies to improve the quality of life for the estimated 850,000 – 900,000 Americans who are HIV positive.